Punjab-Haryana High Court
Subash Chander vs State Of Haryana And Anr on 5 July, 2024
CRA-S-4670-SB-2014 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
103+207
1. CRA-S-4670-SB-2014 (O&M)
Rajbir Singh .... Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana .... Respondent
2. CRA-S-4993-SB-2014 (O&M)
Subhash Chander .... Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana and another .... Respondents
3. CRA-S-4463-SB-2014 (O&M)
Rajeshwar .... Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana .... Respondent
4. CRA-S-4357-SB-2014 (O&M)
Bhupesh Kumar @ Sonu and another .... Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana .... Respondent
Date of Decision: 05.07.2024
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA
Present: - Ms. Vaishali Kamboj, Advocate
for the appellant (in CRA-S-4670-SB-2014).
Mr. R.K. Handa, Advocate
for the appellant (in CRA-S-4993-SB-2014).
RISHU KATARIA
2024.07.12 17:52
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment.
CRA-S-4670-SB-2014 (O&M) -2-
Mr. Partap Singh Gill, Advocate
for the appellant (in CRA-S-4463-SB-2014).
Mr. Himmat Singh Deol and Mr. Anmol Grewal, Advocates
for the appellants (in CRA-S-4357-SB-2014.).
Mr. Surinder Kumar Dagar, DAG, Haryana.
Mr. Nirmal Singh, Advocate
for the complainant (in all cases).
****
NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL)
By this common order, 04 aforementioned appeals are being
disposed of as similar facts are involved therein and also being arisen out
of the one and the same FIR bearing No. 120 dated 12.07.2008 registered
under Sections 323, 354, 452 and 316/34 IPC at Police Station Chhappar,
District Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri. For brevity, the facts are being
extracted from CRA-S-4670-SB-2014.
Briefly, appellants, namely, (i) Rajbir Singh (in CRA-S-
4670-SB-2014); (ii) Subhash Chander (in CRA-S-4993-SB-2014); (iii)
Rajeshwar (in CRA-S-4463-SB-2014); and (iv and v) Bhupesh Kumar @
Sonu and Manish Kumar @ Monu (in CRA-S-4357-SB-2014) along
with their 03 other co-accused, namely; Manmohan Singh, Ram Dutt and
Ishwar (in total 08 accused), were booked and tried in the aforesaid FIR,
on the allegations that all the aforesaid accused persons in furtherance of
their common intention committed house trespass by entering into the
house of complainant-Shamsida/respondent No. 2 (in CRA-S-4993-SB-
2014) and caused injuries to her by making assault upon her, with an
intention to outrage her modesty which resulted into death of her unborn
CRA-S-4670-SB-2014 (O&M) -3-
child. After holding full fledged trial, the learned trial Court, vide
common judgment of conviction dated 07.10.2014 and order of sentence
dated 13.10.2024, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, the appellants, namely; (i) Rajbir Singh (in
CRA-S-4670-SB-2014); (ii) Subhash Chander (in CRA-S-4993-SB-
2014); (iii) Rajeshwar (in CRA-S-4463-SB-2014); and (iv and v)
Bhupesh Kumar @ Sonu and Manish Kumar @ Monu (in CRA-S-4357-
SB-2014) were convicted and sentenced in aforesaid FIR; whereas other
03 co-accused of the appellants, namely, Manmohan Singh, Ram Dutt
and Ishwar, were acquitted of the charges framed against them.
The appellants, namely; (i) Rajbir Singh (in CRA-S-4670-
SB-2014); (ii) Subhash Chander (in CRA-S-4993-SB-2014); (iii)
Rajeshwar (in CRA-S-4463-SB-2014); and (iv and v) Bhupesh Kumar @
Sonu and Manish Kumar @ Monu (in CRA-S-4357-SB-2014) were
convicted and sentenced by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, as under:-
Under Section Sentence imposed In default of payment of
fine
452 read with Rigorous imprisonment Rigorous imprisonment
Section 34 IPC for 03 years and fine of for a period of 20 days
Rs.2,000/- each. each.
323 IPC read Rigorous imprisonment
with Section for 01 year each.
34 IPC
354 read with Rigorous imprisonment Rigorous imprisonment
Section 34 for 02 years and fine of for a period of 01 month
IPC. Rs.5,000/- each. each.
316 read with Rigorous imprisonment Rigorous imprisonment
Section 34 IPC for 04 years and fine of for a period of 02 months
Rs.10,000/- each. each.
All the above sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
CRA-S-4670-SB-2014 (O&M) -4-
Being aggrieved, the appellants have approached this Court
by way of filing aforementioned 04 appeals.
During the pendency of all the aforesaid appeals better sense
has been prevailed between the parties and in order to live peacefully,
parties have entered into compromise dated 19.04.2024 (Annexure A-1),
according to which, both the parties have agreed not to proceed further
with any legal proceedings including the prosecution in the criminal
appeals pending before this Court.
Vide order dated 09.05.2024 passed in CRM-19786-2024 in
CRA-S-4670-2014 and other connected cases, a co-ordinate Bench of
this Court directed the parties to record their statements qua genuineness
of compromise (Annexure A-1 in CRA-S-4993-SB-2014) and the same
is hereby reproduced as under:-
"CRM-19786-2024
On joint request of learned counsel for the
applicant/appellant/convict-Rajbir Singh who has moved
this application as well as counsel for the appellants in
CRA-S-4670-SB-2014, CRA-S-4463- SB-2014, CRA-S-396-
SB-2015 & CRA-S-4357-SB-2014 which have been
preferred against the common judgment dated 07.10.2014
and order of quantum of sentence dated 13.10.2014, all
these appeals are ordered to be taken up together.
Prayer in this application has been made for granting
permission to the appellants namely Rajbir, Rajeshwar,
Shamsheeda, Bhupesh Kumar @ Sonu & Manish Kumar @
Monu to compound the offences for which they have been
held guilty and convicted in the aforementioned case.
Mr. Nirmal Singh, Advocate who has appeared on
behalf of respondent no.2 has affirmed the fact that a
compromise has been arrived at between the parties and
Annexure A-1 is correct certified copy of said compromise.
As there is joint request on behalf of the
appellant/applicant as well as respondent no.2 for
compounding the offences for which the appellants have
been held guilty and convicted and for disposing of the
appeal on the basis of compromise, therefore, to assess the
CRA-S-4670-SB-2014 (O&M) -5-
genuineness of the compromise Annexure A-1, direction is
hereby given to all the applicants/appellants namely Rajbir,
Rajeshwar, Shamsheeda, Bhupesh Kumar @ Sonu &
Manish Kumar @ Monu as well as respondent no.2 to
appear before the concerned Illaqa/Duty Magistrate on
06.06.2024 for getting their statement recorded.
Report be awaited for 05.07.2024.
It may be clarified at this stage that since one of the
offence for which the appellants have been held guilty and
convicted i.e. offence under Section 316 IPC is not
compoundable therefore, the question with regard to
disposal of the appeal under this provision shall be
considered by this Court after considering the arguments to
be addressed by the parties after receipt of the report from
the concerned Magistrate.
The requirement of moving separate applications in
all connected three appeals is hereby dispensed with.
The original compromise deed shall be placed before
the learned Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate on the date
fixed."
Pursuant to the order dated 09.05.2024 passed by this Court,
the parties have appeared before the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist
Class, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, to get their statements recorded.
Learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, has
submitted her report along with statements of the parties vide letter dated
11.06.2024 duly forwarded by the learned District and Sessions Judge,
Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri.
A perusal of the above said report would show that the
appellants and complainant/respondent No. 2 have appeared and suffered
statements with respect to the compromise which have been found to be
genuine, voluntary and without any coercion or undue influence.
Learned counsel for the appellant(s) (in all cases), inter alia,
submit that the matter has been compromised in between the parties. All
the appellant(s) herein are facing an ordeal for the last around 16 years,
CRA-S-4670-SB-2014 (O&M) -6-
inasmuch as, a protracted criminal trial has been hanging on their heads
like a damocle's sword which is also a mitigating circumstance to treat
them leniently.
In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the
appellant(s) have relied upon judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Ram Gopal and Anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021(4) RCR
(Criminal) 322; and a judgment of Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court
in Sube Singh vs. State of Haryana 2013(4) RCR (Criminal) 102,
wherein it has been held that the powers of the Court under Section 482
Cr.P.C. can be invoked to quash a complaint/FIR on the basis of a
voluntary compromise even at a post conviction stage.
Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2-complainant has
stated that she has 'no objection' in case all the appeals are disposed of
and the impugned FIR No. 120 dated 12.07.2008 registered under
Sections 313, 354, 452 and 316/34 IPC at Police Station Chappar,
District Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri and all subsequent proceedings
arising therefrom including the judgment of conviction dated 07.10.2014
and order of sentence dated 13.10.2024, passed by the learned Addl.
Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, are ordered to be quashed
qua all the appellants herein.
At this stage, learned counsel for the State has raised an
objection that all the appellants, namely; (i) Rajbir Singh (in CRA-S-
4670-SB-2014); (ii) Subhash Chander (in CRA-S-4993-SB-2014); (iii)
Rajeshwar (in CRA-S-4463-SB-2014); and (iv and v) Bhupesh Kumar @
Sonu and Manish Kumar @ Monu (in CRA-S-4357-SB-2014) were
CRA-S-4670-SB-2014 (O&M) -7-
convicted and sentenced under Section 316/34 IPC, as such their
conviction cannot be set aside on the basis of compromise.
In this regard, learned counsel for the State refers to the
findings recorded by the learned trial Court in the judgment impugned
herein, in particular to sub-para (v) of para No. 59 (at page 60 of the
paper-book in CRA-S-4670-SB-2014/internal page 44 of the impugned
judgment) which is reproduced as under:-
"59. xxx xxx xxx xxx
(i) to (iv) xxx xxx xxx
(v) Complaint of blows on abdomen. No sign of external
injury seen. Complaint of mild pain. No
tenderness/guarding/rigidity."
I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
Perusal of the finding recorded by the learned trial Court in
the impugned judgment, especially in para 59 thereof, it shows that
injuries were inflicted upon the complainant. Injury No. 5 shows that
there was only complaint of mild pain and there were no signs of
external injury, tenderness/guarding/rigidity, as such, the objection
raised by learned counsel for the State is rejected.
After perusing the report submitted by the learned Judicial
Magistrate Ist Class, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, this Court finds that the
matter has been amicably settled between the parties. Since the matter
has been settled and the parties have decided to live in peace, this Court
feels that in order to secure the ends of justice, the criminal proceedings
deserve to be quashed.
The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Sube Singh's
CRA-S-4670-SB-2014 (O&M) -8-
case (supra), in para Nos. 11 to 13, 15 and 17 held as under:
"(11) The extent and sweep of inherent power
exercisable by the High Court under Section 482 CrPC for
quashing the criminal proceedings on the basis of
compromise between the offender and the victim of crime in
a case which is not compoundable under Section 320 CrPC,
has since been considered in extenso and answered by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab
& Anr., (2012) 4 RCR (Crl.) 543, laying down that the
compounding of offence and quashing of criminal
proceedings are two separate things and not
interchangeable and that the two powers are distinct and
different although ultimate consequence may be the same. It
has been authoritatively ruled that where the offender and
victim have settled their dispute, the High Court in exercise
of its inherent power under Section 482 CrPC, is competent
to quash criminal proceedings even relating to the non-
compoundable offences though such a power need to be
invoked sparingly and not when the offences are heinous,
serious, of mental depravity or like murder, rape, dacoity
etc. The pronouncement thus says:
52. xxx xxx xxx
53. Quashing of offence or criminal proceedings on
the ground of settlement between an offender and
victim is not the same thing as compounding of
offence. They are different and not interchangeable.
Strictly speaking, the power of compounding of
offences given to a court under Section 320 is
materially different from the quashing of criminal
proceedings by the High Court in exercise of its
inherent jurisdiction. In compounding of offences,
power of a criminal court is circumscribed by the
CRA-S-4670-SB-2014 (O&M) -9-
provisions contained in Section 320 and the court is
guided solely and squarely thereby while, on the other
hand, the formation of opinion by the High Court for
quashing a criminal offence or criminal proceeding
or criminal complaint is guided by the material on
record as to whether the ends of justice would justify
such exercise of power although the ultimate
consequence may be acquittal or dismissal of
indictment.
54. xxx xxx xxx
(12) The decision in Gian Singh's case (supra) also
approves the view taken by a five-Judge Bench of this Court
in Kulwinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr.,
2007(3) RCR (Crl.) 1052.
(13) It is indeed now unarguable to say that the power
exercisable by the High Court under Section 482 CrPC for
the quashing of criminal prosecution is limited or affected
by the provision of Section 320 CrPC.
(14) xxx xxx xxx
(15) The refusal to invoke power under Section 320 CrPC,
however, does not debar the High Court from resorting to
its inherent power under Section 482 CrPC and pass an
appropriate order so as to secure the ends of justice.
(16) xxx xxx xxx
(17) The magnitude of inherent jurisdiction exercisable by
the High Court under Section 482 Cr.PC with a view to
prevent the abuse of law or to secure the ends of justice,
however, is wide enough to include its power to quash the
proceedings in relation to not only the non-compoundable
offences notwithstanding the bar under Section 320 CrPC
but such a power, in our considered view, is exercisable at
any stage save that there is no express bar and invoking of
such power is fully justified on facts and circumstances of
CRA-S-4670-SB-2014 (O&M) -10-
the case."
As per the Full Bench judgment of this Court in "Kulwinder
Singh and others Vs State of Punjab", 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052,
it is held that High Court has power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to allow
the compounding of non-compoundable offence and quash the
proceedings where the High Court is of the opinion that the same is
required to prevent the abuse of the process of law or otherwise to secure
the ends of justice. This power of quashing is not confined to
matrimonial disputes alone.
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Gian Singh Vs. State of
Punjab and another", 2012 (4) RCR (Criminal) 543, had also observed
that in order to secure the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of
process of Court, inherent power can be used by this Court to quash
criminal proceedings in which a compromise has been effected. The
relevant portion of para 57 of the said judgment is reproduced here-in-
below:-
"57. The position that emerges from the above discussion
can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in
quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in
exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different
from the power given to a criminal court for compounding
the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power
is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to
be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such
power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent
abuse of the process of any Court."
In view of what has been discussed here-in-above, all the
CRA-S-4670-SB-2014 (O&M) -11-
aforementioned 04 appeals are disposed of and FIR No. 120 dated
12.07.2008 registered under Sections 323, 354, 452 and 316/34 IPC at
Police Station Chhappar, District Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri and all the
subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, including judgment of
conviction dated 07.10.2014 and order of sentence dated 13.10.2024,
passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri.
on the basis of compromise dated 19.04.2024 (Annexure A-1) effected
between the parties, are ordered to be quashed, qua the appellants,
namely, (i) Rajbir Singh (in CRA-S-4670-SB-2014); (ii) Subhash
Chander (in CRA-S-4993-SB-2014); (iii) Rajeshwar (in CRA-S-4463-
SB-2014); and (iv and v) Bhupesh Kumar @ Sonu and Manish Kumar @
Monu (in CRA-S-4357-SB-2014).
Pending application(s), if any (in all the appeals), are also
stand disposed of.
A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of other
connected cases.
05.07.2024 ( NIDHI GUPTA )
rishu JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
